As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes.
When you sell something through Apple, depending on the location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo developer. Sold an in-game coins in France? Apple collected the money, paid the VAT to the French government. If you do this through your own means, you will need to establish a relationship with the French government so that you can pay them the VAT that you have to collect from your users.
This will ultimately benefit large companies who can jump through the hops of managing all this, putting the independent developers in a disadvantaged position due to the high barrier of entry into improved margin(compared to Apple Store where everyone gets the same cut) payments. In some places you can be required to send a printed receipt to the user.
It would not be fun to watch, let's say Zynga, collecting their low cost payments across all their portfolio by making users sign up once and having indie games instantly losing a payment or falling back to high commission options because users are tired of entering payment info for each game.
Sad day for the little guy. Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3 commission or is it Epic, Netflix, Spotify who will benefit from this? Unless you do low margin commission work (like platform where you take a cut, i.e. online tutoring) the %30 commission is a non issue.
Game crystals don't really have a cost, so %5 cut or %30 cut doesn't really matter that much. However, one company having access to the %5 and other not having access to it will change the landscape because the large company will be able to advertise more thanks to its better margins, wiping out the rest.
I'd be stunned if everyone starts using niche payment providers. I think it's more likely the larger providers will step up. It'll be more along the lines of:
Pay With --- Apple IAP ($1.43) - Stripe IAP ($1.06) - Paypal IAP ($1.06)
That's also why Epic is disappointed. If Apple were forced to allow competing app stores, Epic is in a perfect position. They have app store tech with payments, commissions, etc. built in. If Apple's only forced to allow competing payment providers to become more prevalent, everyone thinks of Stripe, Paypal, etc. first. Epic probably has their own payment processing fees to cover, so they'll never be able to compete on price and that's where things are heading IMO.
I think it would be more like Apple IAP($1.43), Your Local payment($1.43), Paypal($1.43).
They will add something like a bonus if you choose the alternative ones. I'm baffled why people expect that the margin will go to the user. Do you think that Epic sued Apple because altruism? To help users save money? They are are after the margins.
Because of the "Your Local payment" option, binary sizes will grow(Uber has this problem, they need to ship the framework of numerous payment providers on every market) or you will start maintaining different binaries for each country.
Also, each payment provider will come with its own rules. One will say "this is too close to gambling, no unless put this text next to the price to clarify" the other will be like "is this related to crypto, you can't do that", the next one will be "I think you must provide 3 months refund guarantee. Also, coins allowed boxes not allowed".
Then you will have to do the legal work for each country separately or work with publishers who do that for you for a hefty cut.
The business side of things is a full time job. That's why when you publish a book or release a song you tend to get tiny amount of the price payed.
I am afraid, this fragmentation has the potential to turn the App&Game business into Books&Music business where you don't make money unless you are superstar.
When costs go down, and profit margin increases, the price point where a company can achieve maximum profit also goes down. This doesn't require altruism or stunts or a fixed profit rate.
Is there anything in the ruling that prevents Apple from requiring all prices be the same or preventing companies from providing extra "value" if their payment processor is utilized?
You make It sound like apple's service will disappear over night. If you're fine with them taking 30% then that's your choice. And if your app does become big enough to reap the benefits of implementing mutiple payment providers then thats even better.
It doesn't work like that. Friction destroys revenues, large companies can remove friction by having their portfolio of users with credit cards collected. Small devs cannot do that because the user will need to enter payment details each time. The best chance would be to use something like Paypal, which is again a huge friction since the user will need to switch apps or enter login information.
As a result, unless you are a huge publisher you don't actually have a realistic chance to sell over alternate low-cost methods. This is not because you can't put the code there but because it will make the user experience so bad that a fraction of your users will proceed.
It's not about being technically possible but it's about being feasible. It doesn't matter that you can technically do it if not enough people want to play along and deal with it.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The problem is that smaller developers will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore. 180 million people have an account with Epic, who knows how many of them have already provided the CC.
If you are an indie, you don't have access to the 180 million people, which creates uneven competition.
When the only payment in town is Apple IAP, you and Epic have the same margin. Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin with at about the same level of friction. If you need to match Epic's margin, you need to introduce friction.
Are there App devs on this site anymore? It feels like arguing with people who have no idea.
> will not have access to the same frictionless services anymore.
Yes they will... They will have access to same exact Apple In App Purchases feature that they had before.
> Suddenly, Epic has %28 more margin
Ok, so then it is not about you having access to the exact same thing that you had before.
Instead, it is that other developers, have more money, and don't have to pay an Apple fee.
Thats pretty different.
You are not complaining about losing something. Instead, you are complaining that other developers, have to pay a lower fee than they had before. But you still have exactly the same thing as you had before.
Generally speaking, lowering costs are not something to complain about.
Large corporations not paying taxes is bad, because it means society has less money to pay for things.
That is very different from companies paying less money to a multi trillion dollar company. Companies paying less to a multi trillion dollar company is a good thing.
It is dishonest to equate that to necessary government services being underfunded.
Lower costs are good. So no, I reject that this is bad for small developers.
It is most bad for apple, as they get less money.
> Tough luck
There is no tough luck. Smaller developers can continue to pay the same amount as they were paying before.
They are not disadvantaged by it, as they get access to the same deals that they had in the past.
The only different is that now, some companies, have the ability of no longer having to pay large amounts of money to a multi-trillion dollar company (apple).
That is a win.
The fact that less companies have to pay many millions and millions of dollars, to one of the most valuable companies in the world, is a win.
And small companies, still have access to the same exact programs that they had before.
> As a Developer, I also don't look forward for integrating 50 frameworks for payment, deal with the limitations of each and every one and go through the bureaucracy of 180 countries for export compliance and taxes.
It sounds like you should be using some kind of service that does that for you, maybe even provided by Apple?
> Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3 commission
Independent devs seemed pretty happy overall with the 15% concession they already got as a result of the legal scrutiny on Apple. No doubt they'll enjoy further improvements to the terms once there is an actual threat of switching.
The point is not that smaller devs like to pay more, the point is that smaller devs would like to compete on even playing field.
The lower the commission, the better. That should be obvious, but it is not better if it comes at cost that is potentially much higher than the reduction of commission.
When you sell something through Apple, depending on the location of your user, Apple will act as Agent or as a Commissionaire. This makes everything easy, even for a solo developer. Sold an in-game coins in France? Apple collected the money, paid the VAT to the French government. If you do this through your own means, you will need to establish a relationship with the French government so that you can pay them the VAT that you have to collect from your users.
This will ultimately benefit large companies who can jump through the hops of managing all this, putting the independent developers in a disadvantaged position due to the high barrier of entry into improved margin(compared to Apple Store where everyone gets the same cut) payments. In some places you can be required to send a printed receipt to the user.
It would not be fun to watch, let's say Zynga, collecting their low cost payments across all their portfolio by making users sign up once and having indie games instantly losing a payment or falling back to high commission options because users are tired of entering payment info for each game.
Sad day for the little guy. Do you see independent Devs cheering for the %2-%3 commission or is it Epic, Netflix, Spotify who will benefit from this? Unless you do low margin commission work (like platform where you take a cut, i.e. online tutoring) the %30 commission is a non issue.
Game crystals don't really have a cost, so %5 cut or %30 cut doesn't really matter that much. However, one company having access to the %5 and other not having access to it will change the landscape because the large company will be able to advertise more thanks to its better margins, wiping out the rest.